[2025:RJ-JP:30202] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6098/2002 Sarvadanand Saxena S/o Shri Shachnida Nand Saxena at present working on the post of L.D.C. in Office of Superintendent of Police, Jaipur. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State of Rajasthan through Secretary, Home Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. The Director General of Police, Police Department, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur. 3. The Superintendent of Police, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : None present For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vinod Kumar Gupta, AGC HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 06/08/2025 1. This matter was taken up yesterday. However, nobody put in appearance on behalf of the petitioner. Hence, in the interest of justice and in order to provide proper opportunity, the matter was posted today. Today also, even in the second round, nobody has appeared on behalf of the petitioner. 2. By way of filing this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged order dated 19.02.2001 passed by the Director General of Police, Rajasthan, Jaipur as well as punishment order dated 04.04.1977. 3. It has been contended in the writ petition that vide order dated 04.04.1977, although penalty of withholding one grade increment with cumulative effect was imposed, which, as [2025:RJ-JP:30202] (2 of 3) [CW-6098/2002] per the petitioner, is a major penalty under the Rules, yet no inquiry whatsoever as contemplated under Rule 16 of Rajasthan Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1958 was conducted by the respondents, which is a material procedural flaw in the impugned penalty order. Hence, the petitioner filed appeal before the Appellate Authority but his appeal was also dismissed on 31.10.1977. 4. It has also been contended in the writ petition that the petitioner was not aware of disposal of his appeal vide order dated 31.10.1977 and he could learn only after receiving letter dated 25.01.2001 issued by the Superintendent of Police (Headquarter). 5. The petitioner has challenged the aforesaid penalty order as well as appellate order passed in the year 1977 by way of filing the instant writ petition in the year 2002. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents has indicated that the impugned penalty order was passed in the year 1977 and at the relevant time, withholding of annual grade increment, irrespective of the fact as to whether it was with cumulative effect or without cumulative effect, was considered as minor penalty under the Rules. For imposing minor penalty, there was no requirement of conducting a detailed departmental inquiry and only after considering reply to the charge-sheet as well as examining the record, the disciplinary authority could have passed order of penalty in such matters. Hence, no illegality whatsoever was committed by the disciplinary authority in passing the impugned penalty order. The Appellate Authority has also properly examined the contentions raised by the petitioner in his appeal. [2025:RJ-JP:30202] (3 of 3) [CW-6098/2002] 7. Apart from making submissions on merits, a serious objection has been raised by the learned counsel for the respondents that the writ petition has been filed after lapse of more than 23 years from the date of passing of appellate order and the explanation sought to be given by the petitioner is totally misconceived. 8. I have examined the record as well as reply filed by the respondents, in which a categorical statement has been given that at the time when penalty order was passed, as per the position of Rules prevailing at the relevant time, withholding of annual grade increment with or without cumulative effect was also considered to be a minor penalty. Hence, in the light of prevailing Rules, the penalty order was passed by the disciplinary authority, which was later on confirmed by the Appellate Authority. 9. Even otherwise, challenging the penalty order as well as appellate order after lapse of more than 23 years is fatal and no interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can be made in the aforesaid circumstances. Hence, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is hereby dismissed. (ANAND SHARMA),J DIVYA /9